WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday were waiting to hear back from Democrats after they sent them a new offer to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which has been shut down since mid-February. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the proposal would fund many of the agencies within DHS, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard, but wouldn’t provide new spending for some immigration enforcement and deportation activities. 

Those programs, mostly run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, received tens of billions of dollars in Republicans’ 2025 “big, beautiful” law, largely exempting those federal workers from the shutdowns.

Thune said the offer currently on the table would leave the door open to the House and Senate moving another budget reconciliation bill through that complicated process to provide additional funding for immigration and deportation programs.

The special legislative pathway would allow GOP leaders to move a bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote as long as they adhere to its rules. That would skirt the need for Democratic votes to get beyond the 60-vote legislative filibuster that applies to other bills. 

Pressure for a bipartisan deal to fund DHS mounted in recent days after security lines at airports throughout the country ballooned into multi-hour waits, leading passengers to miss their flights and face expensive rebooking fees. Union leaders on Tuesday demanded lawmakers reach a deal to fund the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of DHS.

SAVE Act as well

A possible reconciliation package, Thune said, could include elements of the SAVE America Act, an elections bill backed by President Donald Trump that remains stalled in the Senate amid Democratic opposition.

“This is a really good outcome, where we’ve moved the Democrats a long way in our direction,” Thune said. “And I think also an understanding that reconciliation could be a possibility in terms of additional funding and for perhaps addressing the SAVE America Act.”

Thune said the DHS spending bill wouldn’t include any of the overhauls to immigration enforcement that Democrats have advocated for since federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

“What was pretty clear is that they didn’t want funding,” he said. “So if you’re not going to have funding, I don’t know how all of a sudden now you can demand reforms, because I think for them, that was the issue.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during an afternoon press conference Democrats would prepare a counteroffer that would include changes to how ICE functions. 

“This does not have any reforms in ICE. But negotiations are ongoing and they’ve sent us an offer and we’ll be sending them an offer back,” the New York Democrat said. “And I can assure you it will contain significant reform in it.”

Schumer outlined what he described as “common sense” changes to immigration enforcement activities in late January after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

Dems stick to immigration reforms

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she will continue to press for “modest reforms” to immigration activities during negotiations over the DHS spending bill.  

“If we are talking about funding any part of ICE or CBP, we absolutely must take some key steps to rein them in. The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that,” she said. 

Murray later added that negotiators “have made some progress and the White House has already agreed to some steps” but that the entire point is that “reforms must make it into law.”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said the Trump administration has “created this problem in which it’s really hard to address an immigration enforcement operation that’s out of control because it is funded out of almost every part of the DHS budget.”

Murphy said his sense is that Democrats are “still firm on our insistence that we’re not going to fund an immigration enforcement operation without reform.”

Republicans argue for deal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said the latest DHS funding offer represents what Democrats have “asked for multiple times” and that Trump has signed off on it. 

Lankford said GOP senators “could” move additional spending on immigration enforcement through the reconciliation process, pointing to the funding they approved just last year in the “big, beautiful” law.

“We’ve had things like that, even in the last year, and then Democrats had things like that in the (Inflation Reduction Act) as well,” he said. 

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said he believes Democrats “need to take” the deal on DHS funding. 

“They keep telling us they’ll go with us and now they need to do it,” he said. “They can’t keep trying to back up or change the deal. It’s time to get it done.”

Adding SAVE Act could be difficult

Republicans’ plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass additional funding for immigration and deportation programs as well as elements of their voter identification bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act, could face headwinds. 

Any reconciliation bill would need the support of nearly every Republican in Congress, a complicated obstacle given the party’s especially narrow majority in both chambers. 

The reconciliation process is also arduous and filled with rules at nearly every turn, including that all of its elements must address federal revenue, spending, or debt. And those changes cannot be deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, cast some doubt on using the reconciliation process to move elements of the SAVE America Act, saying, “I don’t think that’s a good approach.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Republicans “are at the beginning” of figuring out what, if any, elements of the SAVE America Act can move through the reconciliation process. 

“It’s going to be difficult because it’s not a budgetary impact, it’s a policy impact. But that doesn’t mean some good things can’t move forward that would help with the integrity of the vote,” she said. “So we’ll just have to wait and see. I think reconciliation is probably something we’re going to be strongly considering when we get back.”

Citizenship proof

The legislation has several elements but generally would require Americans to prove their citizenship by showing a birth certificate or a passport when they register to vote. When voters try to cast a ballot they would need to show photo identification. And all states would be required to submit their voter rolls to a DHS database. 

The bill will not be able to make it through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster given strong opposition from Democrats.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said one option for moving “items” in the SAVE America Act through reconciliation would be to provide funding for states to implement some of its provisions. 

“I haven’t seen the specific language on it. I just know that in most cases, what you’re talking about is making money available,” he said. “The policy would not be included, but the resources would be made available because you can’t do policy in reconciliation, you do resources.”

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno said GOP senators will “do whatever we can in reconciliation to get pieces and parts of” the SAVE America Act into law. 

And while he wasn’t entirely sure how Republicans would prove that those changes aren’t “merely incidental” to the multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, he said there is “a whole team of really, really smart people that will answer that question.”

Moreno said Republicans “don’t have to get every single thing in every single way” on the SAVE America Act. 

“You just keep the conversation going,” he said. “Eventually, the American public is going to punish Democrats who aren’t following up on 80-20 issues.”

WASHINGTON — Alan Armstrong, a Tulsa businessman, was sworn in Tuesday as Oklahoma’s newest U.S. senator.

Armstrong temporarily fills the seat of Markwayne Mullin, who was sworn in as U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary earlier Tuesday. 

The Senate on Monday confirmed Mullin’s nomination to lead the agency responsible for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

Armstrong was sworn in at the U.S. Capitol just hours after Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed him to the post Tuesday morning at the Oklahoma state Capitol in Oklahoma City. 

Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, swore in Armstrong. Grassley joined Armstrong and his family in the Old Senate Chamber for a reenactment of the swearing-in shortly after. 

Armstrong has served as executive chairman of the board of directors for Williams. The major energy company is headquartered in Tulsa. 

Armstrong joins Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford in the Senate and will serve alongside him until January 2027 — the remainder of Mullin’s term. 

Under Oklahoma law, Armstrong signed an affidavit earlier Tuesday vowing to not run for a full Senate term in 2026, the Oklahoma Voice reported. 

Earlier in March, Trump gave Oklahoma GOP U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern — who is running in November for the Senate seat — his “complete and total endorsement.” 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump hailed his new Homeland Security head, former U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, as “strong, professional and fair” during an Oval Office swearing-in ceremony Tuesday.

Mullin, who until Monday was one of Oklahoma’s Republican senators, takes the reins at the Department of Homeland Security amid a weekslong partial shutdown in the aftermath of two high-profile fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by two departmental agencies.

Mullin, accompanied by family at the Oval Office ceremony, described his swearing-in as “surreal” and “humbling” during brief remarks after Attorney General Pam Bondi administered his oath of office.

“I made this very clear that I don’t care what color your state is. I don’t care if you’re red or you’re blue. At the end of the day, my job is to be secretary of Homeland and to protect everybody the same. And we will do that. I’ll fight every single day,” Mullin said. 

The partial shutdown has snarled major airports nationwide as thousands of Transportation Security Administration personnel, part of DHS, have quit or skipped work in the absence of paychecks.

Mullin said he met with many DHS employees Tuesday, noting they had been working without pay for more than a month because of “politics.”

Former fighter

Trump praised Mullin at Tuesday’s ceremony.

“I have no doubt that as he takes the helm of DHS, Markwayne will fight for Homeland Security, the United States and securing the country and making it really strong and the way it should be,” Trump said. “Our country’s come a long way in the last year.”

In rising to the role, Mullin became the first member of the Cherokee Nation to serve in the president’s Cabinet, a fact Trump said he “didn’t know.”

Mullin, an award-winning wrestler and former professional mixed martial arts fighter, began his Senate term in 2023. Until being elected as senator, he represented Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District starting in 2013.

Mullin resigned from the U.S. Senate Monday evening following the body’s confirmation of his appointment in a 54-45 vote.

The former senator, who will be tasked with leading a department of 260,000 employees, has not sat on a committee that handles policy for Homeland Security.

Alan Armstrong, a Tulsa businessman, was sworn in Tuesday to replace Mullin in the Senate.

Department in turmoil

Mullin replaces former Secretary Kristi Noem who, since Trump’s second term began, oversaw the president’s mass deportation crackdown and publicly flaunted her role in ad campaigns and public appearances — including being photographed while touring a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador where the U.S. deported hundreds of migrants against a judge’s order. 

Noem notably immediately defended two fatal shootings by department personnel in Minneapolis when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents killed 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7, and Customs and Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti, also 37, on Jan. 24.

Democrats have refused to fully fund DHS unless Republicans agreed to new policies for immigration enforcement — including banning face coverings on agents, mandating body camera usage and requiring judicial warrants. 

“The department that Markwayne takes over today is currently shut down by radical left Democrat thugs in Congress who have blocked all funding for DHS because they’re trying to shield illegal aliens, criminals and gang members,” Trump said, incorrectly stating that all DHS funding has been blocked. 

While a significant number of DHS employees, like TSA officers, have been working for weeks without pay, both ICE and Customs and Border Protection are fully funded under a new influx of cash Republicans approved in July as part of the massive tax and spending package.

Speaking to reporters following Mullin’s swearing-in, Trump declined to talk in detail about negotiations with the Senate to end the partial shutdown.  

“They’re working on all of that,” he said.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed split Tuesday on whether the Trump administration should be allowed to turn away asylum-seekers who present themselves at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The question presented to the justices was whether migrants have to fully cross into the United States in order to have the right to apply for asylum and be processed, or if they can apply for asylum when they appear at a port of entry while on Mexico’s side of the border. 

The policy requiring a full crossing, known as metering, is defunct, but the Trump administration is asking the high court to make a determination in order to potentially revive the practice for future use at the southern border.

“This is an important tool in the government’s toolbox for dealing with border surges when they occur,” Vivek Suri, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, told the court during oral arguments on the asylum case. “I can’t predict when the next border surge occurs, but I can say that when it does occur, this is a tool that (the Department of Homeland Security) would want in its toolbox. It’s not something the court should leave to future uncertainty.”

The six conservative justices seemed to agree with the Trump administration’s position, and questioned the definition of when a migrant “arrives” in the United States and can therefore seek asylum — legal protection granted to those fleeing danger or persecution in their home country.

The three liberals of the Supreme Court — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —  asked whether the policy violated federal law protecting refugees. 

Lower and appeals courts have repeatedly blocked the metering policy, finding it violated U.S. asylum and refugee law for those escaping persecution after the first Trump administration expanded its use in 2017. The Biden administration rescinded the policy in 2021. 

A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that up to 680 migrants per day were turned around as a result of the metering policy. 

The ‘magic thing’

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Kelsi Corkran, an attorney who argued on behalf of the immigrant legal aid and humanitarian group Al Otro Lado, how close an asylum seeker has to be to qualify as “arriving” in the U.S.

The immigration advocacy group originally brought the challenge in 2017 after asylum seekers were turned away by border officials at U.S. ports of entry. 

“What is the magic thing, or the dispositive thing, that we’re looking for, where we say, ‘Ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?’” Barrett asked. 

Corkran said someone arrives in the U.S. at a port of entry “when they are at the threshold of the port’s entrance, about to step over.” 

“I think that’s consistent with ordinary meaning,” she said. “I arrive at my house, or I arrive in my yard, when I’m going through the gate. Now that process of arriving is interrupted by the border officer physically blocking them from completing the arrival.”

Barrett also asked Suri if the Trump administration plans to reinstate the metering policy. 

Suri said the Trump administration would like to, “when border conditions justify.”

Jackson noted the policy, in practice, would require an asylum seeker to violate U.S. immigration law by entering into the country without authorization, based on the Trump administration’s argument that a migrant has to be on U.S. soil before making an asylum claim. 

That would be considered entering the U.S. unlawfully.

“So imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book, he approaches the border but does not cross precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the United States without authority,” Jackson said. “If we’re trying to think about what ‘arriving in’ means, surely Congress was contemplating that a person would be coming to the United States, would be doing so with an intent to comply with the law that says you’re not supposed to enter, and thereby asking for entry.” 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned Suri about how the policy seems to give preference to migrants to enter the U.S. without authorization, rather than those who are seeking to make an asylum claim. 

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t prevent a migrant from seeking asylum. 

“It’s saying ‘our port (of entry) is at capacity today, try again some other day,’ and that time when that person comes in, that person could come in legally,” he said. 

Refugee laws

Sotomayor questioned Suri how the metering policy didn’t violate the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951. That act, which the U.S. signed in 1967, was created after the M.S. St. Louis ship, carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees during World War II, was prevented entry to the U.S. and turned back to Europe. 

Some passengers were able to find refuge in other countries, but 254 died in the Holocaust.

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t send people back to their home country. 

“No, you’re just telling them to walk back,” Sotomayor said, adding that if the turn-back policy were applied to the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis, it would be the same as telling them to swim back. 

“They happened to be on a boat, but that’s what we did,” she said. “We didn’t let them dock. We didn’t consider whether they were being persecuted. And the majority of those people were shipped back or had to go back from where they came and were killed. That’s what we’re doing here, isn’t it?”

Suri said that he does “not deny the moral weight of claims made by refugees, but that is not the question before the court.”

He said the issue is whether Congress imposed the obligation “in the asylum and inspection statutes, and those refer only to aliens who arrive in the United States.”

Sotomayor pushed back and noted that if someone were to fly into LaGuardia Airport in New York, they “may not have put their foot on U.S. land, but they’ve arrived in the United States. They’re knocking on the door.” 

The justices are likely to make a decision on the case by late June. 

The U.S. government will pay a French energy firm nearly $1 billion to cancel its plans to build a pair of wind farms off the East Coast, the Trump administration announced Monday in its latest move to stymie offshore wind. 

The French firm TotalEnergies will forfeit its leases for projects off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, with the United States paying $928 million to reimburse what the company initially spent on the leases.

Under the deal, TotalEnergies will reinvest that money into oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas. 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to block the development of offshore wind projects, which many East Coast states have been counting on to meet their energy needs in the coming years. The projects canceled under the deal announced Monday would have provided power to more than 1 million homes. 

Late last year, the Trump administration invoked classified national security threats to stop work on five wind farms that were under construction, but courts have ruled that the projects can proceed. But for dozens of other projects still in the planning and permitting stages, industry experts expect little progress while Trump remains in office. 

The administration claimed in a statement that the projects were “unreliable and costly.” But New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, condemned the agreement.

“Using a pay-not-to-play scheme to pressure a company to not build offshore wind is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Hochul said in a statement to The New York Times.

Environmental groups also blasted the deal, with some noting that it comes as Trump’s war with Iran has caused chaos for global oil markets.

“This deal is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars to prevent Americans from having clean, affordable power exactly when they need it most,” Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Federal Medicaid cuts could exact a heavy toll on psychiatric units at hospitals across the country, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open but provide essential mental health care to people who need it.

Psychiatric units are costly and, like labor and delivery services, typically lose money for hospitals and tend to be reimbursed at lower rates than other health services. In contrast, some specialty units, such as cardiovascular care, are lucrative: Cardiologists can generate up to seven times their salaries for hospitals.

Between 2023 and 2024, 126 hospitals across the U.S. shut down their inpatient psychiatric units, according to data provided to Stateline by the American Hospital Association.

“(Psychiatric units) are often in the red, and, for lack of a better word, kind of subsidized by the rest of the health system,” said Sarah Steverman of the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare. Steverman oversees regulatory affairs and is the liaison for a committee of hospital psychiatric unit administrators and clinicians.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed into law last year will add to the strain, Steverman and other experts say.

The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $886.8 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO estimates that it could increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.5 million in 2034.

Those cuts will have a significant effect on mental health care because Medicaid, jointly funded by the federal government and the states, covers more people with mental illness than any other public or private insurer — roughly 29% of the estimated 52 million nonelderly adults with mental illness, or about 15 million people, according to health research group KFF.

Behavior health policy experts say the Medicaid changes will force hospital psychiatric units to provide care to many more people who don’t have insurance. Even before the law, Medicaid often didn’t fully reimburse hospitals for the cost of mental health care, unit administrators said.

Along with increasing the number of people without insurance, the One Big Beautiful Big Act places new limits on states’ ability to maximize federal funding and reimburse providers.

The federal government allows states with contracted Medicaid managed care organizations running their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more. But beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap these state-directed payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays.

The federal law also caps provider taxes, a strategy states have used to boost the Medicaid dollars they get from the federal government.

As a result, states will face the choice of replacing the lost federal money with state dollars, scaling back services or providing coverage to fewer people.

Conservatives who have backed the Medicaid cuts say such tools are accounting tricks that states have used to draw down more federal money. Some have even called the provider taxes a “money laundering” scheme. Eliminating them, they say, will force states to be more accountable for their Medicaid spending.

“States are gaming the system — creating complex tax schemes that shift their responsibility to invest in Medicaid and rob federal taxpayers,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a news release last year.

But Angela Kimball, chief advocacy officer at Inseparable, a mental health advocacy organization, said the tools are essential, and that the cuts will be detrimental.

“For the mental health system, and particularly for facility-based care, it (Medicaid) is the financial foundation. And when you simultaneously reduce who’s covered, what providers get paid, and limit the tools states have to make up the difference, you’re not just trimming around the edges; you’re undermining the whole structure,” Kimball said.

The mental health field is also struggling with workforce shortages across states, especially in rural areas. As of December 2024, more than 122 million Americans lived in designated mental health professional shortage areas.

Dr. Arpan Waghray, a psychiatrist and CEO of Providence’s Well Being Trust, serves as a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing. Providence has 16 psychiatric units across Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington state, and Medicaid and Medicaid HMOs account for 42% of patients across those units. That number increased as the states expanded eligibility under Obamacare.

In contrast, Medicaid pays for roughly 13% of oncology inpatients and about 10% of cardiology inpatients across the hospital systems.

“Inpatient psychiatric units, especially when they’re part of larger hospitals and academic centers, like our community hospitals … they generally tend to operate on a loss,” Waghray said. “We are no exception to that.”

He noted that estimates show psychiatric units have a negative operating income of about 37%.

“We don’t want to make a profit on psychiatric units,” he said, adding the goal is to at least “break even.”

Waghray said if more units are forced to shutter, that will lead to more crowding in emergency rooms and jails. Often, jails and prisons — facilities with inadequate care — end up being mental health care providers for people who lacked access to care. People in crisis also may be forced to wait for a psychiatric bed to open up elsewhere.

“It has this cascading effect that touches everyone’s lives,” Waghray said. “The two places where people get care if they don’t get care in the right setting is the inpatient (psychiatric) unit, and you cut that, then essentially you have emergency departments that are overcrowded or jails that are overcrowded.”

Health economist John McConnell, director of the Center for Health Systems Effectiveness at Oregon Health and Sciences University, said “the whole mental health system is really going to get hit with a shock here.”

“Crisis care funding is all over the place, and there’s not really a consistent way of funding it, and it’s often underfunded,” he said. “You had a fragile system … made more fragile with a lot of the executive orders from the Trump administration — and then (the new federal law) has sort of further chipped away at it.”

Steverman said that people with severe mental health emergencies — such as acute psychosis, mania or suicidality — who need urgent treatment after emergency room intake often require multiple clinical staff and observation.

Gretchen Clark Bower, senior director of Behavioral Health Services at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett, in Washington state, said the hospital’s inpatient psychiatric unit, which opened about five years ago, relies heavily on Medicaid: Roughly 80% of psychiatric inpatients are covered by Medicaid, and many have severe illnesses.

“It has been a stretch financially for a long time,” Bower said. “The costs of providing care are far more than what we’re getting reimbursed. And that is extremely challenging.”

Everett’s average psychiatric hospitalization is about 16 days. But sometimes, insurers will only cover up to a certain number of hospitalization days for mental health, Bower said. That leaves the hospital to absorb the rest of the costs.

“We want to make sure that we are discharging people when they are safe to discharge — not just when their insurance stops paying,” Bower said.

Bower said she worries the cuts will destabilize people if their care gets interrupted after losing coverage, putting more pressure and costs on the health system.

“It worries me a lot,” she said. “How do we continue to take care of our community into the future, and how do we sustain ourselves financially as we do that? It’s an incredibly difficult task.”

A report from the American Psychiatric Association found that states that had expanded Medicaid eligibility saw smaller increases in suicide compared with nonexpansion states: Medicaid expansion was associated with about 0.4 fewer suicides per 100,000 people yearly.

“Combined with workforce shortages and long-standing insufficient reimbursement for psychiatric services, further reductions in Medicaid will increase pressure on already struggling facilities,” said Ben Teicher, spokesperson for the American Hospital Association. “Our members have been worried about their psych units for a long time, and any further erosion of what Medicaid pays for would make it even worse.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

The Wisconsin State Senate passed a bill last week that will request funding for health care coverage for incarcerated people from the federal government. State Assembly lawmakers had already passed the bill last month. 

In a Facebook post last week, Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) celebrated the measure and said he hopes Gov. Tony Evers will sign it into law. 

James said that “as people leave our correctional system, they have a 40 TIMES higher risk of overdose death within the first TWO weeks after release.” This appeared to be a reference to a North Carolina study of opioid overdose death rates between 2000 and 2015. 

“This bill is a great step forward for Wisconsin as it ensures we become a healthier, safer community,” James said.  

The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting no. 

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but the bill seeks to have the state apply for a waiver under an exception outlined by the federal government. 

Under the bill, the state’s Department of Health Services would submit a request to conduct a demonstration project to provide 90 days of prerelease coverage to incarcerated people for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. Incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited financial resources.  

The advocacy organization WISDOM celebrated the Senate’s passage of the bill in an email newsletter signed by Mark Rice, the group’s transformational justice campaign coordinator. 

Rice said that full implementation of the bill would reduce needless suffering and the number of people being detained, benefit public safety, save resources and put more people on a path to successful reentry into society. 

In written testimony dated Oct. 31, director Dawn Buchholz of the Juneau County Department of Health Services said that passing the bill “will help us provide crucial services to inmates reentering our communities.”

“In the past, our agency literally completed hundreds of suicide and other behavioral health assessments for inmates experiencing emergency mental health and substance use crises in the Juneau County Jail,” Buchholz testified. “This was a frustrating process because while we can assess inmates, we cannot provide them with mental health or substance abuse treatment due to Medicaid rules.”

Buchholz testified that providing prerelease coverage to incarcerated people, along with a 30-day supply of prescription medications, “will help our agency work more effectively with our jails and prisons, result in a seamless reentry into community behavioral health services and decrease recidivism.”

DOC communications director Beth Hardtke referred the Examiner to the DOC fiscal estimate for information on what the agency is currently able to provide and the potential impact of the legislation. 

The department estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented, allowing the state to expand health care access for incarcerated people. 

The Examiner reported last month that in the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in FY 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people before they were released, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed. 

The Examiner previously reported that states have to reinvest federal matching funds received for carceral health care services currently funded with state or local dollars. Reinvested money must go toward activities that increase access or improve the quality of health care services for people who are incarcerated or were recently released, or for health-related social services that may help divert people released from incarceration from involvement in the criminal justice system. 

In the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that incarcerated people in local detention facilities may also be eligible for the services. This could result in local cost savings in addition to DOC cost savings. The department couldn’t estimate the potential local cost savings of the bill because not all local detention facilities provide the same type or level of services.  

Hardtke noted that the bill only allows the state to apply for the federal waiver, and it isn’t guaranteed that a waiver would be approved. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states had approved waivers, according to the health policy research organization KFF. Nine, including the District of Columbia, had pending waivers. 

In an email to the Examiner in November, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the bill requires the three services that the waiver would need to include to be submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill doesn’t require other criteria for the project, aside from current Medicaid eligibility requirements. 

Beyond those requirements, the department said it needs the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. The bill requires the department to submit the request for a waiver by Jan. 1, 2027. 

Milwaukee lawmakers and residents who have lost loved ones to traffic accidents advocated Monday for a measure that recently failed to pass the Legislature allowing the city to use cameras to catch speeders and other traffic law violators. 

Wisconsin law currently prohibits the use of cameras to capture photos of vehicles that speed or run a red light. SB 375  would have carved out an exception for Milwaukee law enforcement to use a speed safety camera system to identify speeding violations and a traffic control photographic system to identify traffic signal violations.

Milwaukee has been grappling with high rates of traffic deaths and injuries for several years, and Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said during the press conference in the state Capitol rotunda that the bill would help prevent further injuries and deaths. 

“One life loss is too many, and it’s time that we get this bill passed. If it’s not during this session, then next session, it needs to be a top priority,” Drake said.

The state Senate adjourned its final regular floor session of the year last week. The state Assembly had already adjourned its final session, meaning that work in the building will be minimal for the remainder of the year. 

Recent data from the city of Milwaukee found that traffic deaths hit a six-year low in 2025. 

In 2022, traffic deaths peaked at 77. In 2025, 57 people died, down from 70 deaths in 2024. Mayor Cavalier Johnson credits the work of the city and its Office of Vision Zero, which aims to reduce annual traffic deaths to zero. 

According to Milwaukee’s Traffic Violence Dashboard, there have been 7 deaths and 966 people injured across 682 crashes with injuries so far in 2026.

“We know that speed is one of the most significant factors in traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Milwaukee and across Wisconsin,” Drake said. “Traffic safety cameras are a proven, evidence-based solution and in hundreds of other communities, cameras have reduced crashes, injuries and fatalities.”

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, traffic cameras can reduce crashes in large urban areas by up to 54% and cut down on injuries from crashes by up to 47%.

Drake noted the bill never received a vote in the Senate Transportation and Local Government committee even as a majority of the lawmakers on the committee were coauthors or cosponsors. 

The bill had bipartisan support. Its lead authors were Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) and Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville). Tomczyk has not replied to a request for comment from the Wisconsin Examiner about why the proposal never received a vote.

In written testimony, Tomczyk said the bill wouldn’t solve all of the traffic violation problems in the state’s largest city, but would be “a tool in the toolbox that law enforcement can use to try and make the streets a little safer.”

“As a conservative, having more cameras watching our every move is not ideal. Unfortunately, in this modern world, cameras are everywhere, and that train has ‘left the station’,” he said. “When it comes to the safety of Milwaukee residents and visitors, having a few more mechanical eyes watching is something we can live with.” 

Tomczyk also said in the testimony that he was expecting to receive criticism from his party for authoring the bill. 

“That is OK. We need debate and discussion on issues such as these, and I welcome that discussion,” Tomczyk said.

Drake said at the press conference that concerns about the bill being a “cash cow” — a way for the city to bring in money — was one of the biggest barriers to advancing the legislation. 

Lawmakers in the Republican-led Legislature have often been hesitant to increase the amount of revenue going to the city of Milwaukee.

Under the bill, speeders who go more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and are caught by the camera system could get a citation. Drivers who don’t stop at a red light and are caught by the system would be subject to a forfeiture of between $20 and $100.

The money collected from forfeitures would be required to be used for the costs of implementing and operating the system. After the costs have been paid, the money would only be allowed to be used for traffic enforcement, traffic safety programs and traffic safety infrastructure. 

“This is an additional tool that is necessary to ensure that all partners can assure that we are actively changing the behavior in Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, as well as giving the tools necessary to create more calm traffic patterns,” Drake said. 

The bill would have limited the number of cameras to up to five in each of Milwaukee’s 15 aldermanic districts and included a five-year sunset date to allow for an evaluation of the system’s effectiveness.

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) thanked the families who have advocated for the legislation at the Capitol and said she was angry that the bill did not make it across the finish line this session. 

“I know that the cost of the Legislature refusing to act will be paid in funerals and trauma to our communities. It will be paid in my neighbors’ lives. It will be paid by families burying their children,” Johnson said. 

Gloria Shaw’s son, Xavier, died in 2022 at the age of 23 while crossing the road in downtown Milwaukee near Fiserv Forum. She said she has been advocating since then for measures to curb reckless driving in the city.

“I’d have my closure by now had there been more cameras on that corner when he got hit,” Shaw said at the press conference. “I’m fighting for this bill because, not only am I his voice, I’m the voice of others who suffer in silence, who don’t know where to go and what to do. This bill is important.” 

Ruth Ehrgott said that when used correctly the traffic cameras would “create accountability in places where no one is present.” Her pregnant daughter, Erin Mogensen, died in 2023 after a man ran a red light while fleeing police in Milwaukee. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Her family also advocated for the state law that increased mandatory minimums for reckless drivers who flee police and cause serious injuries or deaths.

“For me, this is not theoretical. It was camera technology that helped identify and ultimately lead to the apprehension of the person who killed my daughter and my grandbaby,” Ehrgott said. “Wisconsin has an opportunity right now. Let’s not miss it. No more names. No more families changed forever.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted Monday evening to confirm Markwayne Mullin to lead the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

The 54-45 vote means that Mullin, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, will take over the department in the midst of a five-week shutdown. He will replace outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem, whom the president reassigned to another role in the administration.

Mullin voted for himself. Democratic Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico were the only Democrats to back Mullin’s confirmation.

Just before the Senate adjourned, Mullin submitted his resignation letter.

The department has been shut down since mid-February while Democrats have called for restraints on federal immigration agents after officers killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. On Jan. 7, Renee Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and on Jan. 24, Alex Pretti was pinned down and killed by Customs and Border Protection officers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said on the Senate floor before the vote Monday that Mullin will be entering DHS at a difficult time. 

“It’s a tough assignment, made all the more challenging right now by Democrats having shut DHS down for five weeks,” Thune said. “We all know that Markwayne isn’t afraid of a challenge.”

Speaking to reporters early Monday, Trump said that Mullin is “gonna be fantastic” as DHS secretary. 

As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, Mullin will be the first Indigenous DHS secretary. 

Shutdown effects

Though DHS is shuttered, ICE and CBP are still fully funded because the Republican-led Congress last year passed a separate funding stream of $175 billion for immigration enforcement. 

Trump over the weekend directed his administration to place ICE agents in several airports in an attempt to aid Transportation Security Administration agents, who are working without pay. ICE and TSA are both agencies within DHS.

Mullin does not have any experience on a committee that handles policy for Homeland Security and will be tasked with leading a department of 260,000 employees.

Some senators have raised concerns about Mullin’s temperament, citing a 2023 incident in which he physically challenged a witness before Congress. Mullin also expressed sympathy toward a man who attacked Sen. Rand Paul, breaking six of the Kentucky Republican’s ribs and damaging a lung. 

Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, voted against advancing Mullin’s nomination to the Senate floor. Paul also voted against Mullin’s confirmation Monday night. 

The Senate advanced Mullin’s nomination in a 54-37 procedural vote Sunday. Two Democrats, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich, joined all Republicans who voted Sunday. Paul did not vote on Sunday. 

Wisconsin and 20 other states filed a lawsuit Monday that seeks to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from imposing “anti-discrimination” conditions on all the money the department disburses to the states. 

USDA provides billions of dollars in funding to the states every year to administer programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which in Wisconsin helps nearly 700,000 residents afford groceries. 

Under a new policy issued late last year, USDA states it will not provide any financial disbursements unless the states agree to conditions involving “gender ideology,” “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls and immigration. 

The lawsuit argues the conditions are overly broad and vague, that sub-agencies within USDA are interpreting the rules differently, potentially conflict with existing state laws and amount to unconstitutional roadblocks between the states and the money that Congress has already appropriated to be sent to the states. 

“With billions at stake for life sustaining food and critical funding for their residents, the States may be forced to accept funding conditions that they fundamentally do not understand, that are designed to coerce the States and their instrumentalities to adopt USDA’s policies, and which are ultimately unlawful,” the lawsuit states. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with the attorneys general of California, Illinois and Massachusetts led the development of the suit which is being joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

Aside from the nutrition assistance programs, USDA also funds programs that aid and support Wisconsin farmers, prevent forest fires and protect local ecosystems. UW-Madison received $68 million from USDA during the 2024-25 fiscal year for agricultural research and other programs. On Monday, USDA announced more than $2 million in spending to support timber operations in Monroe and Shawano counties.  

“USDA funding helps keep kids and families fed and healthy,” Kaul said in a statement. “Attempting to use this critical funding to further unrelated policy goals of the Trump administration is wrong and unlawful.”

Airport security workers missed work Monday at the highest rate since a partial government shutdown began in mid-February, the Department of Homeland Security said, and the Trump administration sent immigration officials to some airports in an attempt to keep lines moving.

Travelers reported hourslong security lines at major airports in Atlanta and Houston, while waits of 30 minutes or more were reported at several other hubs Monday.

Nearly 3,500 Transportation Security Administration agents, roughly 11.8% of the scheduled nationwide workforce, called out from work Monday. TSA officers have been working without pay since the department that oversees TSA began a funding lapse Feb. 14 due to a dispute in Congress over immigration enforcement.

Call out rates were over 20% at a handful of major airports, according to DHS. They were:

• 42.3% in New Orleans
• 41.5% in Atlanta
• 39.1% in Houston
• 38.1% in Baltimore
• 37.4% at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport
• 24.7% in Pittsburgh
• 24.2% in Philadelphia
• 21.7% at New York’s Laguardia Airport
• 20.3% in Phoenix

ICE to airports

More than 400 TSA workers have quit since the “pointless, reckless shutdown” began, DHS spokeswoman Lauren Bis said in an emailed statement. 

Bis blamed the shutdown and related problems with air security staffing on Democrats in Congress, and confirmed DHS would send officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another DHS agency, to assist TSA at airports.

TSA officers “are not able to afford gas, childcare, food, or rent,” she said. 

“While the Democrats continue to put the safety, dependability, and ease of our air travel at risk, President Trump is taking action to deploy hundreds of ICE officers, that are currently funded by Congress, to airports being adversely impacted. This will help bolster TSA efforts to keep our skies safe and minimize air travel disruptions.”

President Donald Trump praised ICE in comments to reporters Monday morning and suggested he could also call upon National Guard troops to help at airports.

“They stepped in so, so strongly,” he said of ICE officers. “They’ll do great. And if that’s not enough, I’ll bring in the National Guard.”

Tom Homan, the White House border czar who coordinates much of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, said in a Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that ICE officers would primarily handle duties that did not require extensive training, such as making sure no one entered secure areas through exits.

“We’re simply there to help TSA do their job in areas that don’t need their specialized expertise,” he said, rather than screening through the X-ray machines, he told CNN’s Dana Bash. “But there are roles we can play to release TSA officers from the non-significant role, such as guarding an exit, so they can get back to the scanning machines and move people quicker.”

DHS declined to provide a list of airports to which ICE would deploy, citing “operational security” concerns.

ICE officers were spotted at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the nation’s busiest, where waits of four hours in security lines were reported on Monday.

Shutdown persists

Federal law requires TSA officers to work, even during a shutdown, though they will not be paid until funding is restored.

Despite being at the center of the shutdown debate, ICE has not been affected by the DHS funding lapse because Republicans provided the agency massive funding in the tax cuts and spending bill they passed along party lines last year.

Democrats have refused to fund a fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for the department without major changes to the administration’s immigration enforcement, which reached a tipping point following the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.

“Because of the Democrat shutdown, President Trump is using every tool available to help American travelers who are facing hours long lines at airports across the country—especially during this spring break and holiday season that is very important for many American families,” Bis said.

In a rare weekend session, the U.S. Senate again failed to advance a funding measure for DHS on Saturday.

Deadly LaGuardia crash

The pilot and co-pilot of an Air Canada plane died, and more than 40 people were injured, after the jet collided with a fire truck at LaGuardia airport late Sunday.

The incident was unrelated to problems with TSA, which is not responsible for safety on runways or elsewhere outside of airport terminals, but it further delayed and complicated travel in the New York City area.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday said his administration is in talks with Iran about resolving the war, a claim that significantly tamped down oil prices and spurred market increases in Europe and the United States — though Iran denied any progress in negotiations.

Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, the president said the United States and Iran “HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.” 

Trump’s 109-word, all-caps post brought the cost of Brent crude oil briefly below $100 a barrel, after his threat Saturday to bomb Iran’s major energy infrastructure spiked prices.

The historic shock to the global energy market has caused gasoline prices to soar across the U.S. to an average of $3.95 per gallon on Monday, up from $2.93 a month ago, according to AAA.

Trump said he had called off his 48-hour ultimatum for Iran, set to expire Monday evening, to conduct negotiations over “a five-day period,” he told reporters.

“We’ll see how that goes, and if it goes well, we’re going to end up with settling this, otherwise we just keep bombing our little hearts out,” he said during roughly 20 minutes of comments to the press at the steps of Air Force One prior to boarding a flight to Memphis, Tennessee, for an appearance.

Fourth week of hostilities

Trump claimed Iranian negotiators have agreed on a 15-point plan, as the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran enters its fourth week.

“Well, they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. That’s number one. That’s number one, two and three, they will never have a nuclear weapon. They’ve agreed to that,” he said.

Trump also said the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping passage that Iran has effectively closed to ships flagged under Western and Persian Gulf nations, “will be opened very soon if this works.” 

He suggested “​​maybe me and the ayatollah, whoever the ayatollah is” will share joint control of the strait, which handles a fifth of the world’s petroleum products.

As for Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, Trump said capturing and removing it will be “very easy.”

“If we have a deal with them, we’re going down, and we’ll take it ourselves,” he said.

Iran denial

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has denied such talks were underway, according to a statement cited in media reports.

The speaker of Iran’s parliament Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf also denied any negotiations in a post on X just before noon Eastern, saying “Our people demand the complete and humiliating punishment of the aggressors.”

“All officials stand firmly behind their Leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations with America have taken place. Fake news is intended to manipulate financial and oil markets and to escape the quagmire in which America and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement Monday afternoon, Eastern time, confirming that he spoke with Trump, who he said “believes there is an opportunity to leverage the tremendous achievements we have reached alongside the U.S. military to realize the goals of the war through an agreement, an agreement that will safeguard our vital interests.”

“At the same time, we are continuing to strike in both Iran and Lebanon. We are smashing the missile program and the nuclear program, and we continue to deal severe blows to Hezbollah. … We will safeguard our vital interests under all circumstances,” Netanyahu said, according to his office’s English translation.

Trump’s schedule Monday included the trip to Memphis to participate in a roundtable regarding public safety.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is again trying to send the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the west African nation of Liberia and urging a federal judge to dismiss a bar on his removal, according to legal documents filed over the weekend. 

Abrego Garcia, of Maryland, has agreed to be deported to Costa Rica, which will accept him as a refugee, and is fighting his removal to another third country. The Trump administration cannot remove him to his home country of El Salvador, after he was mistakenly deported there in 2025 and kept in a brutal Salvadoran prison. 

His erroneous deportation cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.

Acting U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons, in a Friday court declaration, said he was disregarding Abrego Garcia’s proposal to accept removal to Costa Rica for two reasons. 

Lyons said Abrego Garcia did not designate Costa Rica as a third country of removal in 2019, when he was granted a withholding from removal to El Salvador. Lyons argues that Abrego Garcia therefore “forfeited his right to designate an additional country of removal when he failed to designate any other country prior to the completion of his removal proceedings.”

Lyons said the second reason is the Trump administration has already invested in “high-stakes political negotiations” with Liberia’s government to accept Abrego Garcia and if the administration were to abandon “agreements negotiated at the highest levels of government (it) could cast doubt on the diplomatic reliability of the United States in relation not only to the Republic of Liberia but also other nations with whom it negotiates on these and other matters.” 

Lyons said for those reasons, federal Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland should dissolve her injunction that prevents the Trump administration from removing Abrego Garcia. 

Third-country removals were somewhat rare until the second Trump administration, which is relying more on them as the president aims to carry out mass deportations. 

Abrego Garcia’s situation dates back years. In 2019, when Abrego Garcia was granted the withholding of removal because a judge found he would face violence from gangs if removed to El Salvador, he had an agreement with ICE to check in yearly. 

In 2025, ICE agents stopped Abrego Garcia while he was picking his son up from day care and he was informed there was a change in his immigration status. He was placed on a deportation flight with hundreds of other men to the brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT. 

Later in 2025, the courts ordered Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.

The Trump administration is asking for Xinis to make her decision by April 17. Xinis was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case to determine if a migrant on Mexico’s side of a border crossing with the United States can legally apply for asylum when arriving at a U.S. port of entry.

The case, which stems from a policy during President Donald Trump’s first term that denied migrants the opportunity to present for asylum, is meant to settle if Customs and Border Protection officers are allowed to refuse to process an asylum seeker who walks up to a port of entry.

A 2019 memorandum created what was known as the metering or “turn back” policy that resulted in border officials physically turning away asylum seekers before they could enter the country. The policy was based on an argument that migrants must be in the United States to apply for asylum and that simply arriving at a border crossing did not qualify.

A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that up to 680 migrants per day were turned around as a result of the policy. 

The Trump administration last year asked the high court to review a 2024 split decision from a panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a lower court’s order finding the policy violated administrative procedure law. 

The lower court found that the “turn back policy” was illegal because CBP had a duty to inspect and process asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry. 

The Supreme Court said in November it had decided to take the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado.

Border doesn’t count, government says

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in briefs that a person has only arrived in the country once they are on U.S. soil.

“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer wrote. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”

He also argued that the appeals court decision interferes with the president’s “ability to manage the southern border” and set immigration policy.

“Before this litigation, border officials had repeatedly addressed migrant surges by standing at the border and preventing aliens without valid travel documents from entering,” Sauer said. 

“The decision below declares that practice unlawful, on the theory that aliens stopped on the Mexican side of the border have a statutory right to apply for asylum in the United States and to be inspected by federal immigration officers.” 

“The decision thus deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border,” he continued.

“For people fleeing persecution the stakes are literally life and death,” said Melissa Crow, one of the attorneys representing Al Otro Lado, an organization that provides legal and humanitarian assistance to refugees and migrants, and a class of asylum seekers, who spoke to reporters before oral arguments. 

No current or future implications

Crow, who has represented Al Otro Lado since the initial challenge to the metering policy in 2017, said “there is no reason to do this” because the policy the Trump administration is challenging has been defunct since the Biden administration ended it in 2021.

Because the federal government rescinded the metering policy before the lower court could enter a final judgment, the brief from Al Otro Lado argues that the challenge presented to the justices “thus has almost no present implications, and likely no future implications either.”

“The government nonetheless urges the Court to grant review just in case it decides at some point in the future to reinstate metering,” according to the brief from advocates.

The challengers of the policy also argue it could give the administration another tool in its immigration crackdown.

“While this case focuses on one defunct policy, we have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people fleeing persecution,” Crow said. 

Crow said she opposed the review by the justices, adding that “there are many other restrictions on the books that are preventing migrants from seeking asylum,” that should be addressed. 

The Rev. Liz Theoharis, the executive director at the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, also briefed reporters. She leads a coalition of 31 faith groups that have submitted a brief in support of the groups and asylum seekers challenging the Trump administration’s move to overturn a court decision that blocked the metering policy.  

“Every major faith tradition makes protecting the stranger a core value,” Theoharis said. “Protecting and welcoming the immigrant is one of Jesus’s first and most powerful teachings.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Monday appeared skeptical of the validity of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, in a case that could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of voters during the upcoming midterm elections.

The high court heard arguments on whether federal law overrides a Mississippi law that requires mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days of the election. Fourteen states have similar laws, which extend a “grace period” to ballots that arrive through the mail after polls close.

Several conservative justices raised concerns with allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day, including whether voters could recall ballots once they’ve shipped them but before they arrive at election offices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether late-arriving ballots risk undermining election confidence.

“‘The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry the election has been stolen,’” Kavanaugh said, quoting from an analysis by a New York University law professor.

The case comes before the Supreme Court at a moment of broader attacks against mail-in voting. Four Republican-led states eliminated their ballot arrival grace periods last year. And Congress is mulling proposals that would restrict voting by mail amid a sprawling debate in the U.S. Senate over legislation demanded by President Donald Trump that would impose sweeping new voter restrictions nationwide. That legislation, known as the SAVE Act, is unlikely to pass because of the filibuster.

The Republican National Committee is challenging Mississippi’s grace period law. The party contends a longstanding federal law that sets the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for federal offices preempts state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day, but received later, to count.

Paul Clement, an attorney for the Republican National Committee, argued the prospect that the outcome of an election could change because of ballots arriving after Election Day would be unacceptable to losing candidates. After the 2020 election, President Donald Trump demanded election officials not count ballots that came in after Election Day. States kept counting ballots.

“If you have an election and the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, 21 days later, the losers are not going to accept that result. Full stop,” Clement told the justices.

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who is defending the state law, argues that federal law allows ballots cast by Election Day to be received later. In legal filings, attorneys for the secretary argue both legal and historical precedent support his position. States may decide that voters have made their final choices when ballots are submitted to state officials rather than when they’re received, according to Watson.

On Monday, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines, with conservative justices skeptical of the grace periods and liberal justices more sympathetic. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court.

“It seems to me that we have a very long history of states having a variety of different ballot receipt deadlines, to include after Election Day,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the court the dispute is over whether Congress in an 1845 law blocked states from counting ballots cast by Election Day but received later. “No one challenged it until now,” Stewart said.

At least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day 2024 and arrived within a legally accepted post-election window, The New York Times has reported, citing election officials in 14 of 22 states and territories where late-arriving ballots were accepted that year.

About 30% of voters cast a mail ballot in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump likewise issued an executive order last year that attempted to require that mail ballots be received by the end of Election Day and to impose other election changes, but much of the order has been blocked by federal courts.

Rick Hasen, a professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law, wrote on his Election Law Blog that it was clear from Monday’s arguments that the Supreme Court will be closely divided, “and the case could come out either way.” A decision is expected later in the spring or early summer.

Caleb Hays, chief policy counsel at the Center for Election Confidence, a conservative-leaning legal advocacy group that opposes ballot grace periods, said his organization was pleased that the justices appeared to pick up on the need for a clear end to the voting period. He also welcomed the justices raising the issue of recalling ballots when they are delivered through the mail or by a third-party service like FedEx.

“That brings into question some of the arguments we saw from (Mississippi) on a ballot being final when it is cast and cast includes when it is deposited in a mailbox,” Hays said in an interview.

As the legal challenge made its way through the courts over the past two years, some Republican-led states moved to eliminate their grace periods. Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio and Utah last year moved to require all or nearly all ballots to be in the hands of election officials on Election Day to count.

The states that continue to extend grace periods for ballots arriving after Election Day are Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, along with the District of Columbia.

Some local election officials have urged the Supreme Court to uphold ballot grace periods. A decision that strikes down state laws’ grace periods would increase the administrative burdens on many election officials, said a collection of election officials and local governments in California, Massachusetts and Washington in an amicus brief.

“(Grace periods) enable administrators in large and small jurisdictions to do their essential work in a timely and reasonable manner,” the brief says.

If the Supreme Court requires that ballots must arrive on or before Election Day, Clement suggested election officials would have enough time to prepare ahead of November. He said such a decision wouldn’t violate the Purcell principle, a Supreme Court doctrine holding that major changes to election policy and practice shouldn’t be made just before an election because voters could get confused. 

The federal law at issue pertains to general elections, not primary elections, he noted — meaning the court’s decision would apply only to the November election.

“There’s plenty of time,” Clement said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

A federal district court judge granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia blocking a declaration from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would pressure health care providers to stop providing care to transgender youth. 

In a press release from her office on Monday morning, Nessel said that Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, in federal district court in the District of Oregon, ruled that the administration cannot threaten to cut off hospitals and clinics from Medicare and Medicaid, for providing this type of care.

“Politicians should never drive medical decision-making,” Nessel said in the press release. “I am relieved that the Court has affirmed that the federal government cannot unlawfully interfere with doctors providing essential healthcare, including treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. My office remains committed to protecting access to necessary care for young transgender individuals.”

The lawsuit, first filed in late December 2025, challenged a “declaration” posted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled “Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents,” which says that gender-affirming health care procedures “are neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors, and therefore, fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care.”

The declaration continues to say that “the Secretary ‘may’ exclude individuals or entities from participation in any Federal health care program if the Secretary determines the individual or entity has furnished or caused to be furnished items or services to patients of a quality which fails to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.”

The lawsuit argues that the declaration “exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes,” making it illegal.

In the states’ motion for summary judgment in early January, they argue that “Excluding children’s hospitals and providers (including pediatricians and endocrinologists) would devastate States’ provider networks, strain the capacity of the remaining providers, and harm the large number of residents in each State that depend on Medicare and Medicaid,” and because of its impact on states, could be blocked by a motion for summary judgment.

Wisconsin will officially join the 22 U.S. states that have sought permission from the federal government to ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from purchasing candy and/or soda with their benefits.

Gov. Tony Evers signed AB 180, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 116, on Monday. In his remarks, Evers celebrated additional funds included in the bill that are meant to keep the state’s payment error rate low but ignored the candy and soda ban that the law will also implement.

Evers, who is serving out his final term in office, said in a statement that he was glad to sign the bill.

“In spite of the chaos at the federal level and the continued attacks on our FoodShare program, I am proud of the work my administration has done over the past year to ensure our kids, families, veterans and seniors across our state receive the resources they need to access basic food and groceries. As long as I am governor, I will continue to do everything in my power to protect Wisconsin families and taxpayers from the harmful decisions of the Trump Administration,” he said in the statement released by his office. 

The bill, coauthored by Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), initially sought only to implement the ban, but additional funds were attached through an amendment after negotiations with Evers. 

Evers started seeking additional state funds for FoodShare last year after President Donald Trump signed a federal tax and spending law that made many changes to the SNAP program. Those changes included cutting the federal government’s coverage of administrative costs from 75% to 50%, eliminating funding for nutrition education programs and steepening penalties for states that have payment error rates over 6%. 

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Republicans across the country, including in Wisconsin, have been pushing to ban soda and candy for SNAP recipients, saying it will help keep people healthy. Democrats have criticized the measure, saying it will stigmatize already disadvantaged children and families. Several Democrats, including Evers, provided support for the measure after lawmakers attached more than $70 million for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to support administration of the program. 

The Wisconsin DHS had estimated that federal penalties could cost the state over $200 million a year. 

DHS Secretary Kirsten Johnson said in a statement that “ensuring the FoodShare program has the resources we need to meet new federal requirements is critical to maintaining access to essential nutrition benefits for Wisconsin families and saving Wisconsin taxpayer dollars.”

Wisconsin will now submit a waiver to the federal government to implement its candy and soda prohibition. The bill also includes more than $3 million so the state health department  can create and maintain an electronic platform to help with implementation of the prohibition.

Evers told reporters last week that he didn’t agree with barring people from buying certain foods but it was “one of those things called compromise.”

A Democrat who originally hoped to be the party’s 1st Congressional District candidate in 2024 is making his second run for the party’s nomination this year.

Lorenzo Santos is leaving his job as Racine County’s emergency services director in April after declaring his candidacy at the end of February. While focusing on rising costs that average Wisconsinites are bearing, he also holds himself out as having a depth of experience and knowledge that will make him more effective if he is elected in November.

Santos’ entry this cycle follows announcements from a half-dozen Democratic hopefuls for the 1st CD — more than have run at one time for the seat in the last two decades.

But the ground is shifting under the feet of candidates — and voters — in the  district. Two hopefuls dropped out earlier this year, and a third hasn’t been heard from since the end of January. That leaves three active candidates in addition to Santos.

Santos said he decided to try again as he saw the fallout from Trump administration policies, ranging from tariffs that have sent prices soaring to federal immigration officers being turned loose on immigrant communities. He focuses his campaign message on the Republican 1st CD incumbent, U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, not on his Democratic rivals.

“I think they’re all great people,” Santos said of the rest of the Democratic field. But, he added, he believes his experience makes him best positioned to serve effectively in the House.

“We’re about to have a majority,” Santos said. “And it’s going to be important that that majority bring that knowledge to the forefront so that they can hold this president and this administration accountable and make sure that the worst instincts are not allowed to run amok like they have done.”

The 1st CD runs from Lake Michigan to Rock County. Until 1994 it had been reliably Democratic for about two decades. From 1998 to 2018, Republican Paul Ryan held the seat, rising to Speaker of the House and repeatedly winning by roughly a 2-to-1 margin.

Steil, a corporate lawyer and former Ryan aide, ran and won the seat in 2018 after Ryan retired. His opponent was ironworker Randy Bryce, who came closer to winning that year than previous Democrats had during Ryan’s 20 years in office.

In 2024, Santos was one of two Democrats in the 1st CD Democratic primary contest when Peter Barca entered the race. Santos and the other Democrat withdrew and endorsed Barca — a longtime Assembly leader and then Department of Revenue secretary. Barca also was the last Democrat to represent the 1st CD in Congress — for a single term three decades earlier.

Steil went on to win his fourth term. But Santos said he has no regrets about his decision to step aside for Barca in 2024.

Bryce is also running again this year. The other Democrats are Mitchell Berman, an emergency room nurse, and Miguel Aranda, a university administrator.

Gage Stills, a Racine activist, dropped out of the contest in January, citing family responsibilities. Enrique Casiano, a Janesville nurse, ended his campaign in March. A third declared candidate, Travis Beckius of Kenosha County, has not posted on his campaign’s Facebook page since January, and his campaign website has lapsed.

Santos served in the U.S. Navy, then worked as a manufacturing sales manager. He moved to Wisconsin after accepting a job reassignment to a 12-state region centered on the state. He went on to get a graduate degree in Homeland Security and switched careers to emergency management, working for local and county government.

Santos is focusing his congressional campaign on what has become a nearly universal theme for Democrats in 2026. He said he’s running  because “one of the biggest things we’re seeing right now is we’re having an affordability crisis.”

When the government shutdown in October and early November 2025 cut off food assistance benefits, known as SNAP, President Donald Trump “basically was fighting against people all across the country” who had relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Santos said. “That’s a microcosm of how this administration looks at people that are struggling and that need support.”

Trump’s tariffs on imports are further hurting the public, he said.

“He believes that it’s going to help us take in more money,” Santos said of Trump. “But the punchline there is that that’s coming from the end consumer. That’s coming from everyday consumers that are already struggling, and we’re taking more money out of their pockets.”

His message to 1st CD voters is that the Republican majority in Congress — including Steil — is failing to represent their interests, Santos said. That goes back to the tax- and spending-cut bill that Republicans passed and Trump signed in 2025 under the name of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” he said.

“We watched this big beautiful bill — which is really just a huge ugly lie. That is one of the biggest tax cuts in the nation’s history for the wealthy and corporations while we raise the cost of health care or eliminate it all together for everyday Americans,” Santos said.

“Bryan Steil voted for that. The president signed it into law,” Santos said, and congressional Republicans are “rubber-stamping” Trump.

 “They’re enabling someone who frankly does not actually understand government,” Santos said. “And we need a Congress that is going to be able to hold the line and fight for working families, especially when they’re struggling.”

He also criticized the war on Iran that the U.S. and Israel launched at the beginning of March, and criticized Republican congressional leaders for not asserting their authority over warfare.

“We need to ensure that we have a Congress that is clear-eyed about what this administration is doing,” Santos said. “They are sending us head-first into another protracted conflict with no meaningful objectives and no clear exit strategy.”

Steil, he added, “has not said anything to that effect because, frankly, he’s just there to rubber stamp anything the president wants to do.”

The Cook Political Report has rated the 1st CD as “Likely Republican” in its most recent summary, dated March 12, and Steil reported having nearly $5 million on hand as of late January.

Santos said he intends to overcome that advantage by persuading voters “that we’re here for them.”

“We will definitely be putting forward an operation that can compete with his fundraising,” Santos said. But, he added, “it’s not all about the fundraising. It’s also about having a candidate that actually stands up for their constituents.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Treasury Department will take over the Department of Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt, President Donald Trump’s administration announced Thursday.

It’s the first step in a multi-phase process that will end with Treasury taking on the entire federal student loan portfolio. It’s also the latest interagency agreement announced by the Education Department. 

A senior Department of Education official cited the agency’s “longstanding partnership” with Treasury in administering federal student aid programs and expressed confidence that the department was in a good position to increase its role. 

The administration continues to take sweeping steps to do away with the 46-year-old Education Department, as Trump seeks to return education “back to the states.” That effort comes despite much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. 

In the first phase, Treasury will also “provide operational support” to the Education Department’s efforts to return borrowers to repayment, per the announcement. 

The Education Department’s student loan portfolio stands at roughly $1.7 trillion. The agency says fewer than 40% of borrowers are in repayment and nearly a quarter are in default. 

In later phases, Treasury is set to “work to provide operational support over non-defaulted Federal student loan debt, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, while also seeking opportunities to provide operational support to FSA’s other functions.” 

The senior Education Department official said that borrowers currently making payments “should see no change” and can expect to see “better customer service.” 

Department forges multiple agreements

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that “by leveraging Treasury’s world-renowned expertise in finance and economic policy, we are confident that American students, borrowers, and taxpayers will finally have functioning programs after decades of mismanagement,” in a statement Thursday. 

The Education Department has announced nine other agreements with the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior and State that transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court in July 2025 temporarily greenlit mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier that year. Those layoffs inflicted a heavy hit on Federal Student Aid, among other units at the agency.  

That plan was outlined in a March 2025 executive order that called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department.

‘Irresponsible, reckless’ 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that “instead of helping student borrowers get the support they need, Secretary McMahon is focused on illegally hollowing out the department she leads and creating new, harmful bureaucracy while she’s at it,” in a statement Thursday.

“Despite all this administration’s talk about creating efficiency, the fact is these agreements simply create pointless new red tape — while threatening basic services and support that students depend on every day,” Murray added.

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, lambasted the announcement Thursday.

Gittleman described it as “an insult to the nearly 43 million Americans with federal student loan debt and to the taxpayers who depend on federal oversight to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.”

Gittleman noted that since McMahon took over, “the agency has fired or pushed out nearly half of Federal Student Aid’s workforce, leading to the Government Accountability Office warning that the majority of federal student loan servicers running the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio have been repeatedly breaking the law without staff oversight.”

The GAO report found that the staffing reductions affected the government’s ability to determine how well student loan servicers are doing their jobs.

Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the administration’s move as “irresponsible, reckless, and bad news for our most vulnerable student loan borrowers.”

She added that “in the midst of a growing affordability crisis where American families are already struggling to make ends meet, this risks driving millions of borrowers further into financial hardship.” 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted Sunday to advance Oklahoma GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

The 54-37 procedural vote sets up a final vote on Mullin’s confirmation as early as Monday. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted to advance Mullin, after backing him in committee as well. Also voting with Republicans was Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.

If confirmed, Mullin will take over a department that has been shut down since Feb. 14 amid a stalemate over changes to immigration enforcement policy. 

Senate Democrats have declined to approve a funding bill for the department following the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis during a months-long immigrant enforcement operation. 

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted, 8-7, to move Mullin’s nomination forward Thursday. Mullin did not gain the support of the fellow Republican who chairs the committee, Rand Paul of Kentucky, but still received a favorable vote from the committee because Fetterman joined all other Republicans in voting in Mullin’s favor.

Paul did not vote on Sunday.

During Mullin’s confirmation hearing, Paul questioned whether Mullin could lead the DHS given his “anger issues.” He also confronted Mullin about his comments calling Paul a “freaking snake” and expressing sympathy for a neighbor who assaulted Paul in a 2017 attack that broke six of his ribs and damaged a lung.

Outgoing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem leaves the department, which has the primary responsibility of enforcing President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policy, with myriad problems, including a bottleneck in approving Federal Emergency Management Agency grants.

Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, also came under bipartisan criticism for describing the victims of the fatal Minneapolis shootings, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as domestic terrorists without any evidence. 

Mullin made a similar comment the day of Pretti’s shooting, but said during his confirmation hearing that he regretted the statement, though he stopped short of apologizing to Pretti’s family.